All over the world till lately, and in most of the world still today, mankind has been following the course of nature. That is to say, it has been breeding up to the maximum. To let nature take her extravagant course in the reproduction of the human race may have made sense in an age in which we were also letting her take her course in decimating mankind by the casualties of war, pestilence and famine. Being human, we have at last revolted against the senseless waste. We have started to impose on nature's heartless play
a humanize new order of our own. But, when once man has begun to interfere with nature, he cannot afford to stop half way. We cannot, with impurity, cut down the death rate and at the same time allows the birth-rate to go on taking nature's course. We must consciously try to establish equilibrium or, sooner or later, famine will stalk abroad again.
Which of these statements does not express the opinion of the author?
A. Mankind has started to interfere with the work of nature B. Many people has died in the past through want and disease C. Mankind should not have the maximum number of children possible D. Mankind should take care of its children E. Man's present relationship with nature in matters of birth and death is a happy one
Correct Answer: E
Explanation
negates the opinion of the writer. The writer implies that mankind has started death control. He also noted that before humans' interference, many had died a natural cause from war, disease, famine. The writer's point is also that, to avoid overpopulation resulting in famine. mankind must also control birthrate - must not have maximum number of children possible. The writer also implies that controlling death rate is in a bid for mankind to preserve its children. However, the last sentence of the passage establishes that the present relationship of man with nature where birthrate is far higher than death rate is not a happy one, and there must be equilibrium or famine will soon breakout.
